[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 107 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29485-29488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13565]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 43

[CC Docket No. 92-296; FCC 95-181]


Simplification of the Depreciation Process

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission is adopting ranges for 
the underlying factors that are used to compute depreciation rates for 
the local exchange carriers (LECs) regulated under the price cap 
incentive regulatory plan. Under new procedures, LECs may make 
streamlined filings for changes in depreciation rates, if their 
underlying depreciation factors fall within the prescribed ranges. The 
Commission implemented the streamlined procedures in two phases. The 
Second Report and Order (released June 28, 1994) adopted underlying 
factor ranges for 22 of the 34 depreciation rate categories. This Third 
Report and Order adopts ranges and alternate simplified procedures for 
the remaining 12 accounts and completes the implementation process. The 
rule change will lessen the depreciation prescription burden on price 
caps LECs in light of regulatory and market changes without sacrificing 
protection for consumers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1995.

[[Page 29486]] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fatina K. Franklin (202-418-0859) or John Hays (202-418-0875), Common 
Carrier Bureau, Accounting and Audits Division.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order in the Simplification of the Depreciation Prescription 
Process, CC Docket No. 92-296, FCC 95-181, adopted May 2, 1995 and 
released May 4, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Dockets Branch (room 230), 1919 M St., Washington, DC. The full 
text will be published in the FCC Record and may also be purchased from 
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
room 246, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554 (202-857-3800).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Federal Communications Commission has submitted the following 
information collection request to OMB for review and clearance under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3507. Persons wishing to 
comment on this information collection should contact Timothy Fain, 
Office of Management and Budget, room 3225, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-3561. For further 
information, contact Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, 
(202) 418-0214.

    Please note: The Commission has requested expedited review of this 
collection by June 23, 1995, under the provisions of 5 C.F.R. Section 
1320.18.

Title: Section 43.43--Report of Proposed Changes in Depreciation Rates
OMB Control No.: 3060-0168
Action: Revised collection
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities
Frequency of response: On occasion; Triennially; Annually
Estimated Annual Burden: 12 responses; 5625 hours per response; 67,500 
hours total
Needs and Uses: In the Report and Order in CC Docket No. 92-296 
(released 10/20/93), the Commission streamlined its depreciation 
prescription process for local exchange carriers (LECs) regulated under 
its price cap regulatory scheme by adopting a modified form of the 
basic factor range option. The Second Report and Order (released 6/28/
94) adopted the initial set of accounts and ranges for the price caps 
LECs. The Third Report and Order adopts ranges and alternate simplified 
procedures for the remaining accounts and completes the implementation 
process. The Commission has modified its information collection 
requirements whereby large LECs must submit analyses on proposed 
changes in depreciation rates. The changes should reduce by 43.75% the 
amount of time needed to prepare and review these analyses. The 
information will be used by the Commission staff to establish proper 
depreciation rates to be charged by the carriers pursuant to Section 
220(b) of the Communications Act, as amended. 47 U.S.C. 220(b).

    The foregoing estimates include the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the burden 
estimates or any other aspect of the collection of information 
including suggestions for reducing the burden to the Federal 
Communications Commission, Records Management Branch, Paperwork 
Reduction Project (3060-0168), Washington, DC 20554 and to the Office 
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
    Summary: 1. On September 23, 1993, we adopted streamlined 
depreciation prescription procedures for the local exchange carriers 
(``LECs'') regulated under our price cap incentive regulatory plan.\1\ 
These procedures require us to establish ranges for the underlying 
factors that are used to compute depreciation rates for plant 
categories. The new procedures generally will permit carriers to make 
streamlined filings for changes in depreciation rates for these 
categories, as long as their underlying factors fall within the 
prescribed ranges. By adopting these streamlined procedures, we hoped 
to simplify the depreciation process, achieve administrative savings, 
and allow the LECs greater flexibility\2\ in the depreciation process, 
while remaining consistent with the public interest.

    \1\Simplification of the Depreciation Prescription Process, 
Report and Order, 58 FR 58788 (1993) (Depreciation Simplification 
Order).
    \2\Flexibility allows a LEC to select, within established 
ranges, the life and salvage factors it uses in prescribed 
depreciation rates without undergoing the expense of submitting 
studies to justify its specification of those factors. In addition, 
under the new procedures, the LECs can change their basic factors 
annually, as opposed to the current triennial represcription cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. We further concluded that the streamlined procedures should be 
implemented as soon as practicable, beginning with the plant accounts 
most readily adaptable to the range approach. To that end, we decided 
to implement the new procedures in two phases. In the Second Report and 
Order (released 6/28/94), we completed phase one of the streamlining 
process and adopted ranges for 22 plant categories.\3\

    \3\Simplification of the Depreciation Prescription Process, 
Second Report and Order, 59 FR 35632 (1994) (Second Report and 
Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On October 7, 1994, we adopted a Further Order Inviting 
Comment\4\ proposing streamlined procedures for the remaining 12 plant 
categories. The FOIC sought comments on the proposed projection life 
and future net salvage ranges proposed by the Bureau for eight of these 
categories and alternate simplified procedures for the remaining four 
categories.

    \4\Simplification of the Depreciation Prescription Process, 
Order Inviting Comments, 58 FR 62083 (1993) (OIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In response to the FOIC, the United States Telephone Association 
(USTA) and most of the LEC commenters urge the Commission to adopt the 
ranges so that the LECs can use them during the 1995 depreciation 
represcription process. These commenters, however, give limited support 
to the ranges as proposed in the FOIC. They state that those ranges are 
based on ``historical'' data that are not forward looking. In addition, 
they argue that the proposed projection life ranges encompass useful 
lives that are too long.
    5. The General Services Administration (GSA), MCI 
Telecommunications Corporation (MCI), and the National Association of 
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) support the ranges proposed in 
the FOIC. They state that the methodology the Commission used to 
determine the ranges is sound and that the ranges are reasonable and 
should be adopted without modification. MCI and NARUC further state 
that the proposed ranges appear to provide flexibility to a majority of 
the LECs, but are not so broad as to be meaningless.
    6. On the other hand, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Idaho 
Commission) and the Missouri Public Service Commission (Missouri 
Commission) contend that the ranges are based on inadequate data. They 
state that, while the data are useful for determining the depreciation 
factors for a specific company, they are not adequate to establish 
industry-wide ranges. The Missouri Commission and the Idaho Commission 
indicate that the proposed ranges are too wide and that the ranges 
could substantially increase the carriers' depreciation expense. The 
Missouri Commission indicates that these ranges would give the price 
cap LECs discretion over approximately $1 billion in depreciation 
expense. In addition, the Missouri Commission [[Page 29487]] contends 
that the ranges' width should vary inversely with the size of the 
account so that the potential depreciation change would equal some 
``target discretion value.'' Thus, according to the Missouri 
Commission, accounts with large balances should have relatively small 
ranges and accounts with small balances should have relatively large 
ranges.
    7. In the Depreciation Simplification Order, we set forth the 
specific methodology that should be used to establish the projection 
life and future net salvage ranges. We have already used that 
methodology in establishing ranges for 22 depreciation rate categories 
in our Second Report and Order. In this Order, we are again using that 
methodology to set ranges for eight additional plant categories. This 
methodology requires that we consider certain specifically enumerated 
data. To apply it for each account and for each of the two basic 
factors, we first developed a range of one standard deviation around 
the mean of the basic factors underlying the currently prescribed 
depreciation rates for each of the LECs. From that point, we determined 
whether there were technological trends or changing carrier plans that 
might not be fully reflected in some of the LECs' prescribed factors. 
We then considered the number of LECs with basic factors that fall 
within the initial ranges and altered the ranges where appropriate. We 
recognized, however, that these specifically enumerated data must be 
considered in light of our obligation to prescribe reasonable 
depreciation rates. Thus, in developing the proposed ranges, we 
considered both the specific data enumerated in the Depreciation 
Simplification Order and our overriding responsibility to prescribe 
reasonable depreciation rates.
    8. After reviewing the comments, we have decided to adopt the 
ranges proposed in the FOIC. (See Appendix). As indicated above, these 
ranges are based on statistical studies of the most recently prescribed 
factors. These statistical studies required detailed analyses of each 
carrier's most recent plant retirement patterns, the carriers' plans, 
and the current technological developments and trends. Because the 
proposed ranges reflect these data, we do not believe that the ranges 
are too high, too low, or not accurate as several commenters contend. 
Moreover, the ranges are not so broad as to be considered meaningless 
by including all prescribed factors.
    9. As we stated in the Second Report and Order, our objective in 
this rulemaking is to streamline the process used by the Commission to 
prescribe depreciation rates, not to change those rates. We believe 
that the ranges adopted in this Order, and in the Second Report and 
Order, provide a reasonable degree of confidence that the basic factors 
falling within their bounds will produce depreciation rates accurately 
reflecting plant retirements, company plans, and technological trends. 
On the other hand, they allow the LECs sufficient flexibility in the 
selection of the final factors. Consequently, we have decided not to 
deviate from any of the proposed ranges at this time. We believe that 
some experience with the ranges should be developed before we consider 
modifying them. As suggested by most of the commenters, this will also 
allow us to establish the ranges as quickly as possible so that the 
LECs can use them during the 1995 represcription process. If changing 
conditions require revisions in the ranges, we can modify them during 
our three-year range review.
    10. In the FOIC, we did not propose ranges for Account 2211, Analog 
Electronic Switching; Account 2215, Electro-mechanical Switching; and 
Account 2431, Aerial Wire.\5\ We stated that the LECs are rapidly 
phasing out the obsolete equipment recorded in these ``dying 
accounts''\6\ and replacing it with equipment based on newer 
technologies. We proposed to calculate the depreciation rates for these 
accounts from specific plant retirement schedules that the LECs have 
developed based on company plans to modernize their networks. We stated 
that these rates would be more accurate and easier to calculate than 
rates based on national averages that require detailed statistical 
analyses of forecasted basic factors.

    \5\47 CFR 32.2211, 32.2115, 32.2431.
    \6\``Dying accounts'' are asset accounts in which little or no 
new investment is being made, and for which substantial retirements 
are impending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. In addition, we did not propose a range for Account 2121, 
Buildings.\7\ We stated that, for depreciation study purposes, we had 
permitted the LECs great flexibility in subdividing this account and 
estimating lives for each subcategory. We also stated that, because of 
the significant differences among the categorization methods, the LECs' 
current basic factors for the subaccounts could not be used to 
establish nationwide ranges. In the FOIC, we proposed to maintain the 
basic factors underlying the currently prescribed depreciation rates 
for the buildings account, until our three-year range review when we 
will reconsider whether ranges would be appropriate for this account. 
In the interim, we proposed to require that the price cap LECs submit 
the same data for the buildings account that would be required under 
our streamlined study procedures.\8\

    \7\47 CFR 32.2121.
    \8\Depreciation Rates Branch, The Federal Communications 
Commission, The Federal Communications Commission Depreciation Study 
Guide Sec. I (1995) describes these streamlined study procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The parties commenting on these matters support our proposals. 
MCI, the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern), and USTA 
indicate that there is no need to establish ranges for ``dying 
accounts.'' NARUC agrees that our proposed method for determining the 
rates for the three ``dying accounts'' would be more accurate than 
rates based on national averages. NARUC maintains that these rates can 
be readily calculated using individual company retirement schedules 
without the need for statistical analyses to forecast lives. The 
commenters also concur with our proposed treatment of the buildings 
account.
    13. We conclude that the public interest would be best served by 
adopting the alternate streamlined procedures for these accounts 
proposed in the FOIC. We find that the cost of establishing and 
administering ranges for these accounts would outweigh the benefits. As 
we stated in the FOIC, depreciation rates on obsolete equipment 
recorded in ``dying accounts'' can be readily calculated from 
retirement schedules using a methodology less complicated than the 
range approach. Moreover, to establish ranges for the buildings account 
would require that the LECs' present data be recast into new, uniform 
subcategories. The LECs have indicated that the cost of compiling the 
information necessary to develop new subcategories would be 
substantial.\9\

    \9\See Letter from Thomas R. Whittaker, Chairman, United States 
Telephone Association Ad Hoc Depreciation Committee, to Ms. Fatina 
Franklin, Chief, Depreciation Rates Branch (June 21, 1994).
    14. Furthermore, we find that the depreciation rates calculated for 
these accounts using our alternate streamlined procedures will be more 
accurate than depreciation rates based on the range approach. For the 
``dying accounts,'' the rates will reflect company-specific retirement 
schedules rather than national averages of the underlying basic 
factors. For the building account, we believe the present rates will 
reflect company operations over the next few years. The LECs do not 
have plans to add or retire a significant number of buildings during 
that period. As a result, the underlying depreciation 
[[Page 29488]] factors applicable to Account 2121 likely will not 
change, and an extensive analysis of the buildings account probably 
will not be necessary within the next few years. In the interim, we 
believe that the data required under the streamlined study procedures 
will be adequate, and will allow price cap LECs to submit only these 
data for the buildings account.
    15. Under our depreciation prescription process, one-third of the 
carriers for which we prescribe rates have their rates reviewed each 
year. LECs scheduled for review in 1996 and 1997 may file for changes 
in their depreciation rates in 1995 as long as they use basic factors 
within the ranges we have selected and ranges chosen are consistent 
with their operations. These carriers must file these depreciation rate 
changes by July 1, 1995.

Ordering Clauses

    16. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 4(i), 201-205 
and 220(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 201-205 and 220(b), that the ranges for the future net salvage 
and the projection life factors for the accounts listed in the Appendix 
are Hereby Adopted as specified in the Appendix.
    17. It is Further Ordered, that this order is effective thirty days 
after publication in the Federal Register.
    18. It is Further Ordered, that carriers may use the ranges 
established herein for federal filing purposes prior to the effective 
date of this order.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 43

    Communication common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
LaVera F. Marshall,
Acting Secretary.

                                         Appendix.--Accounts and Ranges                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Projection life     Future net   
                                                                                range (years)     salvage range 
   Account No.            Account Name           Depreciation rate category  ------------------     (percent)   
                                                                                               -----------------
                                                                                Low      High     Low      High 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2220............  Digital switching...........  Digital switching...........       16       18        0        5
2220............  Operator systems............  Combined....................        8       12        0        5
2232............  Circuit equipment...........  Digital.....................       11       13        0        5
2411............  Poles.......................  Poles.......................       25       35      -75      -50
2421............  Aerial cable................  Metallic....................       20       26      -35      -10
2423............  Buried cable................  Metallic....................       20       26      -10        0
2426............  Intrabuilding network cable.  Metallic....................       20       25      -30       -5
2426............  Intrabuilding network cable.  Non-metallic................       25       30      -15        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 95-13565 Filed 6-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M